Call for testing/opinions: Optimized memset/memcpy
fgenfb at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 13 17:13:12 EDT 2013
Dr. David Alan Gilbert <gilbertd <at> treblig.org> writes:
> You might like to compare with some of the routines at:
> and some of the numbers at:
That's interesting. I had looked at cortex-strings before but didn't
dig into it, also because its benchmark program seemed to be limited in
scope. From the Linaro numbers it seems NEON isn't always a win
especially on newer Cortex platforms, with large variability across
> is an interesting article on one machine being screwed over by
> video bandwidth.
I have the same type of device (the Cortex A8 which I've tested on),
when running a 1920x1080 screen at 32bpp that does indeed cost a lot
bandwidth (it's 500MB/s of scanout bandwidth), I think this applies to
most devices except higher-end ones with a 64-bit DRAM interface.
> I've only had a brief scan through your code, one thing I remember
> from a couple of years ago was a theory that ldrd/strd was supposed
> to be faster on A15's (but I never had a chance to try it out).
I briefly experimented with ldrd/strd, it seemed to be fast but
highly dependent on the proper (64-bit) alignment. In my current code
it is only used in Thumb2 mode in one spot.
> Maybe neon is worth a try these days (although be careful of platforms
> like Tegra 2 that doens't have it); there was a recent patch that enabled
> use in the kernel (I think for some RAID use). The downside is it's
> supposed to be quite power hungry.
Although I don't have experience with NEON, there seems to be a lot of
variability across platforms/cores when using it for memcpy, and it may
have extra overhead when used in the kernel. I will look at it in more
detail, but not using NEON does make things easier (not having to detect
NEON, being compatible with older platforms etc).
Thanks for the comments.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel